scholarly journals Using external noise methods to isolate mechanisms of attention/perceptual learning

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (7) ◽  
pp. 67-67
Author(s):  
Z.-L. Lu ◽  
B. A. Dosher
Keyword(s):  
Perceptual Learning ◽  
External Noise

scholarly journals Modeling perceptual learning in external noise with Hebbian reweighting

2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 863-863
Author(s):  
Z.-L. Lu ◽  
J. Liu ◽  
B. Dosher
Keyword(s):  
Perceptual Learning ◽  
External Noise

Characterizing perceptual learning with external noise

2004 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason M. Gold ◽  
Allison B. Sekuler ◽  
Partrick J. Bennett
Keyword(s):  
Perceptual Learning ◽  
External Noise

Perceptual Learning of Vocoded Speech With and Without Contralateral Hearing: Implications for Cochlear Implant Rehabilitation

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Martin Chavant ◽  
Alexis Hervais-Adelman ◽  
Olivier Macherey
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Perceptual Learning ◽  
Speech Signal ◽  
Training Phase ◽  
Monosyllabic Words ◽  
Low Pass ◽  
Contralateral Ear ◽  
Number Of Individuals ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Vocoded Speech

Purpose An increasing number of individuals with residual or even normal contralateral hearing are being considered for cochlear implantation. It remains unknown whether the presence of contralateral hearing is beneficial or detrimental to their perceptual learning of cochlear implant (CI)–processed speech. The aim of this experiment was to provide a first insight into this question using acoustic simulations of CI processing. Method Sixty normal-hearing listeners took part in an auditory perceptual learning experiment. Each subject was randomly assigned to one of three groups of 20 referred to as NORMAL, LOWPASS, and NOTHING. The experiment consisted of two test phases separated by a training phase. In the test phases, all subjects were tested on recognition of monosyllabic words passed through a six-channel “PSHC” vocoder presented to a single ear. In the training phase, which consisted of listening to a 25-min audio book, all subjects were also presented with the same vocoded speech in one ear but the signal they received in their other ear differed across groups. The NORMAL group was presented with the unprocessed speech signal, the LOWPASS group with a low-pass filtered version of the speech signal, and the NOTHING group with no sound at all. Results The improvement in speech scores following training was significantly smaller for the NORMAL than for the LOWPASS and NOTHING groups. Conclusions This study suggests that the presentation of normal speech in the contralateral ear reduces or slows down perceptual learning of vocoded speech but that an unintelligible low-pass filtered contralateral signal does not have this effect. Potential implications for the rehabilitation of CI patients with partial or full contralateral hearing are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document